Systems thinking in group decision making

 In previous chapters we gradually built understanding of complexity and complex systems, and what makes improving them so difficult. When multiple participants/stakeholders are involved, but at the same time can add additional levels of complexity. In Chapter 6 we introduced methods used for analyzing systems, specifically causal loop diagrams. In this chapter we will focus on using causal mapping as a more specific technique that stems from causal loop diagrams.

In modern organizations there are a number of trends. First, we need to inclusive and ensure that everyone is involved in significant decisions. Second, the world we live in is becoming increasingly dynamic and uncertain; thus, we need to be able to make decisions fast in response to changes and ensure that everyone is involved in these decisions. Systems thinking provides us with a set of tools that enables group decision making. In this chapter we will demonstrate its use for strategy making/formulation as an example to show how systems thinking enables group decision making. We will start with discussing strategy making in the complex world and open strategizing as a bottom-up approach in comparison with more traditional top-down approaches to problem structuring. We will then introduce causal mapping and its use in analyzing causal maps and compiling an open strategy based on a causal map. The penultimate section will provide practical advice on designing a causal mapping workshop to maximize the benefits of this approach.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Understand

the benefits of causal mapping for strategy making in the complex world

the benefits of causal mapping for making and negotiating decisions in groups

.Learn to use action-oriented causal mapping to aid strategic decision making

build the maps

validate the maps

focus on a specific type of problem

analyse the maps

develop a decision plan

.Learn how to organize a causal mapping group workshop

7.1 Strategy and complexity in the modern world

Up to this point we have looked at various tools and methods that can be used to understand systems, system complexity and model them from a particular point of view. However, we all might have different views on a particular problem or issue. Does it mean that one view is better or more correct than the other? And how do we choose which one? And if not, how do we capture different views and combine them in a systematic manner?

In this chapter we are going to look at a specific type of causal mapping—action-oriented causal mapping—which is widely used to aid strategic decision making (Ackermann and Eden, 2011a; Bryson et al., 2004). This method allows us to capture aspects of an individual’s thinking about a problem or question. If used in a group, it provides an environment for capturing participants’ diverse views on the problem, negotiating the meanings and reflecting their changing minds.

We can use problem structuring, in particular the causal mapping approach, for strategy making that entails a high degree of ownership and practicality. These two conditions are quite important and not always obvious in strategic management and other areas of business.

We're living in a complex and changing world. Amy Edmondson, a professor from Harvard Business School, discusses the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) nature of the world and the need for approaches to address it. In recent decades, we have faced major crises and ongoing challenges, such as climate change. Organizations must adapt to continuous change rather than just responding periodically.

Typically, organizations can't control external crises; instead, they aim to manage risks by understanding their strengths and developing capabilities to adapt effectively. Reviewing foundational strategy thinkers like Michael Porter and Henry Mintzberg reveals the evolution of strategic ideas. Initially, strategic planning resembled long-term financial plans crafted by a small group of strategists with external input, which needed to be enacted by the organization. However, this traditional top-down approach is now widely contested, as the complexities of the VUCA world challenge established strategies.

Instead, a new view of strategy emerged that is quite often referred to as open strategy (Whittington et al., 2011). It advocates for building on the experience, capabilities, wisdom, and hunches of managers at different levels in the organization. Through the process of capturing their thinking about what the strategy of the organization should be, what the values are, what capabilities the organization has and what the organization is bad at, they also develop a sense of ownership of the strategy.

In a way, these first steps resemble a classic SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis, which is often used in the preliminary steps of decision making to evaluate the position of a system. It helps to focus attention equally on strengths and weaknesses, which will then allow the organization to find strategic fit. Following this approach, the strategy is no longer pre-defined but rather it becomes emergent and adaptable to the changing environment. To support this process, the organization needs to have good methods for making strategy and supporting their decision making. It is people who make decisions, and this process is highly unpredictable . Causal maps, which you will find look very similar to causal loop diagrams, can help manage this uncertainty. They become a transition object that is amended as the conversation between strategy makers and facilitators unfolds. They support negotiations about the priorities, building consensus between all the parties involved, addressing trade-offs and tensions, and ultimately building a sense of ownership of the strategy (Figure 7.1). All these social processes are as important as building the map itself (Ackermann and Eden, 2011b).

Why is the sense of ownership important? Traditional top-down planned strategies that are then shared across the organization might be difficult to implement. When the strategy is shared across the organization, some might interpret it and take it in different directions, creating disjoint and incoherent efforts to implement it, resulting in strategic drift. Others might read the strategy and even use it to build a case for a new project proposal, but ultimately, the strategy remains on the shelf gathering dust. This happens because those responsible for implementing the strategy have not been involved in the conversation. If instead, strategy making becomes a social process. 

involving discussion, negotiation and building consensus over what is feasible, what can be done, what should be the priority, what the constraints are, and then managers at different levels, who can make the strategy happen, develop a collective sense of ownership for the strategy. It incorporates their world views and unifies their efforts in the agreed direction, and therefore they will commit to it and enact it.

7.2 Causal mapping for problem structuring

Causal maps are a variation of causal loop diagrams covered in the previous chapter. The action-oriented causal mapping method is based on the strategic options development and analysis (SODA) approach for capturing individual views of an issue, using interviews and cognitive mapping. SODA provides a framework for problem solving that highlights the need to capture multiple views on a complex issue. It is informed by George Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory (Kelly, 1955), which emphasizes that an individual’s construct of the world influences the way they interpret their observations and the way they make sense of experiences.

Causal mapping can help to better understand aspects of an individual's thinking about a problem or question. In essence, it captures the perceptual reality by gathering participants' judgments, wisdom, understanding, and sensing of the situation. The map is built by paying attention to the expressed causality ('because,' 'in order to,' 'and so,' etc.) of a situation. The links between the statements help the group to have that discussion about the consequences of particular issues or options, as well as the resources and capabilities required to support each option.

The use of causal mapping emphasizes idiosyncrasy: each viewpoint represents an individual’s own understanding of the world around them. It helps to draw on various voices to avoid one person dominating the conversation, which can happen in a more traditional setting. It is important to recognize that the map represents important aspects of the conversation and helps us to have a more robust, more interesting discussion, as well as support contributions from multiple stakeholders incorporating different world views. However, it is not assumed to be a perfect representation of reality; rather, it is a model in its own right.

An advantage of causal mapping is that it allows you to capture the complexity and richness of empirical material without reducing it. The map will This is particularly important when looking at organizational systems and addressing organizational issues. They never exist in isolation and are impacted by as well as impact other systems, such as other organizations, stakeholders, etc. They can often be improved or addressed in multiple ways. Causal mapping can help explore the interconnections and possibilities in a structured way.

Below is an example of a causal map that was developed during a workshop that discussed how to improve the livelihoods (i.e., disposable income) of smallholder farmers in Brazil.

Usually, the statements that emerge in the middle will indicate strategic issues and dilemmas such as 'Reduce food waste,' 'Sell more of farmers' produce,' and 'Increase added value of the produce,' which are critical to solve. Part of the process of analyzing the map described in the subsequent sections is to understand the critical issues. It is by solving these critical issues that we can achieve the goal, which will usually be located at the top of the map, while the bottom of the map will usually contain more detailed actions to resolve the issues. This layout of the map is usually achieved by directing the links upwards towards the top of the map.

7.3 Constructing causal maps

Causal maps are constructed through group meetings or by merging cognitive maps obtained individually. In both approaches, the facilitator follows the same steps outlined below. If individual cognitive maps are built, then the facilitator must join them together into one causal map before analyzing the final map. In this case, the facilitator would have to scrutinize the language and meaning of different statements, e.g., to ensure that there is no redundancy in the map (the same idea expressed in different words), or conflicting ideas with similar wording and the same meaning. In the following, we have detailed a three-step process for constructing cognitive maps.

Step 1: Gathering Data

The mapping process usually starts with one open-ended question, such as: What are the main distinctive competences, core capabilities or dynamic capabilities of our organization that we should be protecting rather than outsourcing? What should be the corporate strategy in the next five years? How should we divest the corporate portfolio? What should be our mergers and acquisition options in the next few years? What are the most critical strategic issues our organization is facing today? The question should be fairly simple at this stage.

Then the participants are invited to write statements in response to this question. The statements can be written on sticky notes or gathered using specialized software. If you are looking for software designed specifically for this method, Strategy Finder (https://www.strategyfinder.com/) is a cloud-based option that can support group work. Decision Explorer (https://banxia.com/developer/) is a desktop-based alternative, which can be used by a facilitator during the workshop, but does not support group work. Kumu (https://kumu.io/) is a generic alternative that can support causal mapping through systems or causal loop diagram templates. It also has a free account option. It is useful to number all the statements to make it easier to navigate the map; specialized software can do this automatically. The list below provides guidelines for what a good statement should look like.

DO:

Use short statements (6–8 words)

Look for actions (imperative verbs), e.g., ‘find more funding’ instead of ‘need to find more funding’

Retain ownership (use the participant’s original language)

Break down long statements

Look for contrasts in meaning (opposite poles)

Watch out for possible key issues and general outcomes that are good in their own right

DO NOT:

Aggregate the statements

Use generic statements, e.g., ‘management communication’

Make judgments about, or omit, things that you believe to be less relevant; they may turn out to be important once the map has been produced.

Both positive and negative statements are welcomed during the data-gathering step. For instance, hiring new staff leads to having to spend more money, but it may also mean having better staff, which may result in having better capabilities.

The role of the facilitator at this stage is to check the statements for clarity and ask for clarifications or rephrasing. The most important condition here is to try and make as many statements actionable as possible, because then the causality can be captured much more easily. For example, you might want to formulate the statement as 'improve food quality' instead of 'high food quality.' During this step, the facilitator also starts clustering the statements to look for emergent themes, without linking them just yet.

Step 2: Linking the statements

When the initial data gathering has been completed, the group usually starts with one cluster or theme that unites a group of statements, which is considered the most important, linking statements together in causal relationships. Deciding on the most important cluster can be done through voting or group discussion. Alternatively, if none of the clusters stand out, the facilitator can pick any to get the process started. Then the group moves to the next cluster, linking the statements within this cluster as well as looking for links with the first cluster. Sometimes halfway through it becomes evident that a new cluster needs to be added to the scope because the two are strongly interconnected.

Adding an arrow between two statements indicates at least a partial influence of the statement initiating the arrow on the statement receiving the arrow.

STATEMENT → influence → STATEMENT

In combination, the links and statements create an issue system, which can be arranged hierarchically from potential causes through to ultimate effects. The image shows a hierarchical schematic of connected statements, flowing into the top statements. Actions are connected to issues, which are connected to head issues (possibly goals). These may also be described as means to end or cause to effect relationships.

When looking for connections, it is useful to use two questions:

1.The statements coming out of the issues (in the middle) answer the question 'why?'

2.The statements coming into the issues answer the question 'how?'

Figure 7.4 shows an example of five statements reflecting on the issues that a university wants to address. The statements have been added and numbered in order of capture and then labelled with connecting arrows to indicate influence. For instance, the university wants to 1) attract more students from overseas. Why do they want to do that? Because this will 2) increase university income. How can this be achieved? One option would be to 3) improve university ranking position; another option would be to 4) improve branding of the university. Improved ranking will also have another positive consequence—5) receive higher proportion of the government research funding, which will in turn contribute to the increased university income. Apart from linking the statements, this example also demonstrates how different options emerge and can potentially be prioritized.

During the process the group is not limited only to the statements that have been brainstormed during Step 1. The mapping process might reveal gaps in thinking, unintended consequences or new opportunities (as in the example above), and the need to add new statements to fill in these gaps.

Step 3: Tidying up the map

Before and during the analysis, you might need to tidy up and merge maps. Specifically, when tidying the map, you need to check that the correct wording is used, e.g., using overly generic wording may require clarification. You might want to check that there are no redundant summary links on the map. For example, the link between 'Transition to Net Zero by 2050' and 'Influence companies’ behaviour to implement sustainability strategies with Net Zero targets’ is redundant because the two statements are already connected through other statements.

You would need to check the heads (those statements that do not have outgoing links) and ensure that they are indeed the high-level goals. You do not want to have goals that are not good in their own right. For example, statement ‘Address challenges of last-mile delivery: transparency, cost, unpredictability’ does not look like an ultimate goal of a logistics consultancy, unless it is a very specific research project. Even then, this statement looks more like an issue that needs to be addressed in order to achieve a more strategic goal. Therefore, it needs to be linked to one of the existing statements or prompt a new statement in response to a question like ‘Why this issue needs addressing?’similary statement ,  youger consuters have an intrinsic motivation to become part of  the sustainability solution and are willing to change their behaviour' looks like an extema facros When looking at a recollection of events illustrating an underlying problem, it might be tempting to describe them through causal links in chronological order. However, it is important to try to capture causality rather than chronology or a timeline, focusing on underlying problems and generalized causes.

If you identified feedback loops, you should scrutinize them to ensure they are valid because feedback loops are much less frequent than in causal loop diagrams. You might discover that the direction of some arrows in this loop needs to be changed.

Then, examine if any statements duplicate each other, which may require merging them. Pay attention to the context, and instead consider if the wording of the statement needs to be revised. For example, statements might use similar wording but refer to different contexts, leading to confusion.

The resulting map normally resembles a tear-drop structure in shape. Once the map has been created, it needs to be validated with the group participants to ensure it is an accurate representation of the situation. For instance, you might want to check the direction of arrows and interpretation of causality between the statements with the participants. Below is a quick checklist of what to look for when tidying up the map:

.correct wording

.check the direction of arrows

.remove unnecessary summary links

.check the validity of feedback loops

.emphasize causality, not chronology

.merging statements: similar wording can be an indicator for merging; however, it is important to pay attention to the context (ins and outs)

Now try constructing a causal map using the following case study.

CASE STUDY: A systems thinking case study

The following is a story detailing the Landless Workers’ Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra – MST) in Brazil and the formation of a Canudos settlement, one of the several settlements that resulted from this movement. Using this story as a basis for analysis, develop a strategic problem structuring map to identify the problems of this complex situation. Capture the viewpoints of the different participants involved.

A Canudos settlement of small farmers in Brazil was established when 12,757 hectares of land that belonged to the former president, Colemas Rezende, and his family was occupied. This first occupation occurred on 6 October 1997. 127 families stayed in this location for nine days under pressure from other farmers, the police, and local politicians.

The solidarity Movement of Landless Rural Workers started a conflict with the local landlords to expropriate a part of their land. This provoked marches for peace, social justice, and agrarian reform.

After four consecutive occupations and conflicts with armed forces, 48 percent of the Legal Reservation and Permanent Preservation Area was given to the families.

In the following years, the government struggled to attract younger people from the already pressured cities. How could they make rural life more appealing? Perhaps they could improve living conditions by giving small farmers special credits, family scholarships, and retirement income.

Maize was easy to grow but wasn’t profitable for the farmers. In 2006, the Brazilian government signed a new law to support local farmers. This law included the stipulation that 30 percent of school food must be sourced from local suppliers. This meant farmers could sell fruit and vegetables at higher prices and improve their living conditions.

However, the farmers had to meet certain requirements to be able to bid for contracts. For example, how would these farmers control the quality of their products? Or how would they organize their supply chain? The University of São Paulo offered help by educating the farmers on how to monitor produce and meet HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) standards. This helped slightly, but more work and infrastructure were needed.

To begin with, try to draft your initial ideas on a piece of paper. It will not be perfect on your first attempt, but you will refine it through iterations. Draft the statements, group them in themes, and then begin to arrange the statements hierarchically to establish an issue system (potential causes through to ultimate effects).

To be continued...

7.4 Analysing causal maps

Once your basic map has been established, the next stage of the process is to analyze the map and explore the issues further. When you start analyzing the map, as a first step to aid the analysis, you might want to consider visual support to help focus and reduce the map to manageable size, as well as conduct visual analysis of the map. Depending on the software you are using, you might be able to copy parts of the map to separate views to focus on a certain issue or category of issues. Then usually any changes you make in the separate view will be transferred back to the common map. You might also want to use styles to distinguish visually between different categories of statements, particularly when the resulting map has more than 100 statements. For example, if we are looking at the issue of integrating smallholder farmers into higher-value supply chains, then we might want to categorize different barriers into themes like cultural barriers, structural barriers, technology barriers, etc. At the early stages of a project, it might be also useful to separate into high-level objectives, identified problems and opportunities linking to these objectives and potential solutions addressing these problems and opportunities. The categories you created for styles will form your sets. If you bring them to a separate view, you will be able to zoom into the map and see what this part of the map tells you.

Then, you need to explore busy statements on the map, those statements that have a lot of incoming and outgoing links. In all that complexity, the busy areas are probably your strategic issues. However, you might find out that they are too generic and need breaking down into more nuanced statements. You can use centrality analysis. This analysis can also be referred to as central analysis, but we believe that the term centrality captures better the  Essence of the analysis. This analysis is used to aid you with identifying important statements to focus on using weighted sums of the first-, second-, and third-degree connections. Those are likely to be the statements that have the most significant impact on the system. Most of them will be visually represented as busy statements, but you might also find a few surprising ones that do not look connected to many statements directly but generate high impact through a lot of second- and third-degree connections.

However, the degree of proximity might also need to be taken into account. When central scores are calculated to identify the most central concepts, usually the highest weight is given to the first-degree links, then the weight is reduced for the second- and third-degree links. For example, if you just count the links, concept B has 11 links while concept A has only 10. However, if you take a weighted sum, the central score of concept A will be high – 8 vs 6.6 for concept B. This is because concept A has more first-degree connections than concept B. What it means for decision makers is that issue A might be of a higher priority to focus on.

Some software packages allow for conducting centrality analysis that calculates a weighted sum of first-, second-, and third-degree connections. The next step in the analysis is to check the map for feedback loops. Feedback loops have already been discussed several times in the previous sections. In causal mapping, feedback loops work the same way as in causal loop diagrams. Below is a summary of the two types of loops used in systems thinking:

Balancing feedback loops, which can also be referred to as self-correcting cycles in causal mapping literature. They stabilize or balance the system. They lean towards an ‘equilibrium’ of a single value; however, sometimes such loops can create a state of alternating between two values.

Reinforcing feedback loops, which can also be referred to as escalating cycles in causal mapping literature. They can drive the value to infinity by reinforcing the feedback in the system. They are self-sustaining. If they contain issues, these loops can be vicious cycles. If they benefit the system and have a positive impact captured in them, they can be virtuous cycles.

As mentioned in the previous section, in action-oriented causal mapping, feedback loops are less frequent because of how statements are formulated, focused on action and direction of action from cause to effect. Therefore, there is no reason to panic if there are no loops on the map. If the map contains loops, these are very important for the system to focus on. When a priority issue or goal is part of the feedback loop, the loop could represent a complex matter of high significance to the organization.

The next aspect to focus on is to look at the heads and tails of the map. The heads should have already been highlighted during the tidying-up step. During this phase, the remaining heads that do not look like the main objectives of the system need ‘laddering up’ on the map, i.e., responding to the question ‘why’ until the group reaches the higher-level objectives. Tails, or those statements that do not have incoming links, should be the actions that will form the action plan. If they look too generic or high level and lack detail to be included in the action plan, then you need to continue exploring and detailing the solutions to the problem by ‘laddering down’ on the map, or answering the question of ‘how’ the statement can be achieved/resolved.

As you continue exploring the map, you will focus on the relationship between different statements. During the exploration, you might discover that some connections are too generic to the level of being pointless. The example in Figure 7.9 shows a very generic relationship between transitioning to Net Zero by 2050 and developing policies for limiting unsustainable consumer behavior. This scenario calls for an unpacking of this relationship.

In what context should policies limit unsustainable consumer behavior? If we look at it in the context of logistics, it would limit consumer-responsive modes of delivering things, whereby a company delivers orders whenever consumers want them, rather than engaging consumers in a more optimal (e.g., carbon neutral) solution. This in turn can be viewed as part of developing Green hubs within transport systems, which might be one of the future approaches to green logistics. Green logistics is in turn viewed as one of the alternative scenarios in logistics of the future that is meant to transition to Net Zero. We can continue exploring this cluster further. For instance, something else that might limit a consumer-responsive mode of delivering things is improving consumer understanding of the impact of their behaviour on logistics. Developing green hubs might also require more than one approach, such as developing receiver-led city logistics (Figure 7.10).

Below is a quick checklist of what to look for when analysing the map:

.Focusing on the selected aspects of the map

.Views – you can display parts of the map on different .views to make it easier to focus on specific areas.

.Using styles – you can use different styles for different clusters or themes to aid visual analysis.

.Sets – you can split the map into different sets by theme or clusters to make it easier to manipulate the map during the analysis.

.Lists – you can look at different lists, e.g., heads, .tails, or most central concepts to aid the analysis and ..validation of the map.

Elaborating relationships

.Exploring interesting options and issues

Reinforcing loops

.Domain/central (watch out for catch-all phrases)

Heads (end goals) and tails (actions to achieve the goals)

Cluster and busy statements

7.5 Agreeing Priorities

Using your (facilitator) judgement and group discussion, supported by analysis, you can identify a set of priority initiatives and grade them according to their relative priority (i.e., which of these priorities matters most). You can consider factors such as:

.the relative urgency

.feasibility

.potential impact (or indeed any other criteria of importance to the organization as we decide on the relative priority of ideas within the priority set)

Setting up a vote to help decide relative priority can be a useful mechanism. For example, when working with a management team, each participant can be given three to five votes/points which they can allocate to the statements they think the organization should concentrate on. They can distribute the votes whichever way they want, e.g., allocate all of them to one concept or distribute them between several different ones. Normally, participants are not constrained by the type of statements they can vote for, meaning that they can vote for any statement. However, if you want to steer them towards a more specific type by guiding them on what to focus on, you can suggest what the participants should be looking for when distributing the votes. For example, if they are asked to vote for the most important problems, they might naturally select statements that are positioned closer to the top on the map.

Once the relative priority has been decided, an indicator can be added in the text of the priority ideas on the map to capture the decision. You can use "" for top priorities and then "" and "" for other priorities, according to the sense of their relative importance, or you can use different styles to indicate the degree of importance. The identified priorities can be used to zoom in on the chosen areas and continue a more in-depth analysis of the parts of the map.

Do you agree with those actions? Do you think it’s an important strategic issue? And once we have all the records, we can ask the group to vote. Do you think these are our long-term strategic issues? What might help to decide on the priorities is linking them to the budget/financial and non-financial resources. For example, you can give the group 100 credits and ask them to distribute them across five main priorities. At this point, the group usually shifts the focus to the making of the resulting strategy. While doing this, it is important to keep in mind that consensus is more important than compromise.

CASE STUDY ... Continuing the systems thinking case study

Let us go back to the Canudos example. The map in Figure 7.11 is our interpretation of the story. When you build your map, it will most likely look different, which is fine—it does not make it better or worse. You need to remember that we are capturing a soft system and we are prone to our own biases that shape our viewpoints, so each map is likely to be different.

We can look at the busy statements (with solid border lines), statement 29 'Improve farmers' living conditions', which is the main focus of the story, and statement 40 'Sell higher-value products to local schools', as the key solutions to this objective.

We can also notice a feedback loop (with dotted border lines), a balancing loop for the government that they would want to reduce. In this story, people marched in support of the landless rural workers' movement for peace, justice, and agrarian reform. In response, the government agreed to give 48 per cent of the claimed land to the families. They did it to keep their voters happy, so they would then be less likely to continue marching. And this decision in turn reduced the amount of people marching on the streets, as they saw the desired outcome of their protests.

Then we can look at the heads in the map. One might think that improving farmers' living conditions would be the ultimate goal in this system; however, for the government it is only a means to achieving another goal—stopping outmigration and reducing pressure on urban areas. The decision to give land to farmers also supports

another higher-level goal (the statements with solid background) – 34 Preserve the environment in the areas of the settlements.

Finally, we can look at the tails (with shaded borders), all of which are the actions that need to be performed or have been performed to achieve different objectives in the systems.

Making an open strategy

Making strategy involves balancing the need to be thoughtful and intelligent about the future direction while at the same time accounting for the social and political pressures in the successful implementation of agreements. If the group discussion does not reach the space where consensus needs to be reached, it might mean that the discussion has not touched on the trade-offs. When trade-offs are brought up, participants become more involved and start talking about the alternatives, limited resources, prioritization. Mapping the complexity is only the start of the strategy-making journey. Deciding which option to take is where the real struggle with the strategy conversation is happening.

Initially, the group focuses on using instinct, experience, and wisdom to work with all the strategic issues and opportunities identified in the previous steps. This approach to strategy resembles negotiations (Ackermann and Eden, 2011b), because in the discussions of the priorities, usually the politics come in, and they are unavoidable. The question of how we spend limited resources inevitably leads to the decisions about which team will receive more funding, for example, because that team is needed for supporting our core strategies.

As was mentioned previously, it is important to reach consensus rather than compromise. In the process of reaching consensus it is useful to think about the following questions: What if we choose option A for our strategic priority rather than option B? What will be the consequences? And what capabilities do we need to have in place to support option A and option B? And if we want to go for both option A and option B at the same time, do we have enough capabilities and resources to support both of them? And if not, which option do we choose? And this way compromise would mean choosing option A over B, and consensus building might require creating a new option C from options A and B. In other words, we might need to try to find an option where available different options have some representation in the strategy.

Negotiations that lead to consensus rather than compromise require a number of important features:

.Start from ‘where each participant is at’ – their immediate and personal role concerns: issues.

.Seek to develop new options rather than fight over ‘old’ options: conciliation.

.Attend to ‘procedural justice’ (fair procedures, being listened to) – it is not about democracy but about good management.

.Use a ‘transitional object’ – a picture/model that is equivocal (fuzzy but meaningful) and changing, and that encourages shifting of positions. In our case, the causal map can be such an object.

Following these principles throughout the process will help to ensure that the developed strategy is accepted by all the participants and can then be successfully implemented. The outcome of the identified consensus will be captured in the Statement of Strategic Intent (SSI), a report that is usually written after a strategy-making workshop. Developing the SSI usually involves creating focus, which can then be followed by strategic issues within that focus, which are then followed by actions that help to address these issues captured in the SSI. Below we will describe different types of focus that you might want to choose when deciding on the type of problem you want to address with causal mapping. We will then go into more detail of one type of focus – competitive advantage – which can be explored through assets, competences, and competence outcomes. We will guide you through the analysis, which can then be used as a basis for formulating SSI.

Creating focus

The prospective strategy can differ in its focus, and it is recommended that the group tries to focus its attention on one of the following types. In particular, the focus might be on issue, purpose, or competitive advantage.

.Issue focus: The group might be interested in the issues an organization is currently facing. In this case, the strategy-making process will focus on various issues and their prioritization in order to explore potential solutions to the issues that are recognized by the group as the most important.

Purpose focus: The group might be interested in organizational purpose. In this case, the focus will be on the system of organizational goals and their interrelations.

Competitive advantage/differentiation focus: The group might want to explore what makes their organization competitive. In this case, the group will explore and identify patterns of distinctiveness that emerge from identified organizational competences.

The reason for choosing the focus is that organizations cannot be good at everything. But as far as we have that strategic focus, we have a better chance of success in today’s complex, ambiguous, and rapidly changing environment. Figure 7.12 summarizes the differences and combinations. While issue management and purpose might be somewhat self-explanatory, productive use of resources or identifying competitive advantage usually requires.

"further exploration. In open strategy, it is focused on identifying assets, competencies and competence outcomes in the company, some of which are distinctive (Eden and Ackermann, 2010) Those are essential not only for strategy making but also for developing core capabilities for fulfilling a purpose and function of an organization, which are in essence a combination of competences and capacity to perform determined by available resources (both financial and non-financial). In the following section we are going to focus on the competences and how causal mapping can help identify them."

Assets, competences and competence outcomes

Traditionally, we look at assets, competences and outcomes in a linear manner, as shown in Figure 7.13. Assets enable competences, which then lead to competence outcomes. In other words:

What we have: assets

What we do with the assets: competences

What we achieve: competence outcomes

Competence outcomes then enable delivering business goals, which leads to delivering customer value and, ultimately, delivering generic goals.

"Individual competences are rarely distinctive – distinctiveness arises through patterns or bundles of competences. Distinctive competences develop through networks of relationships between competences and organizational purpose. Unlike distinctive competences (DC), distinctive competence outcomes (DCO) cannot be managed directly – they are more externally focused and support business goals directly. Historical and distinctive assets (DA) can be exploited by distinguishing competences in order to achieve distinctive competence outcomes. Identifying core competences allows the decision-making group to unpack complex relationships between the different components described above, as shown in Figure 7.14. Core distinctive competences are the ones that lead to distinctive competence outcomes. We can also think of threshold competences, which are essential for achieving business goals but might not have much impact once the threshold is passed.

When trying to mark competence outcomes, competencies and assets on the causal map, you will usually end up with a sandwich-like structure. In the bottom, you will have assets or what the company has that allows it to stay competitive, for example, having a global training base or possessing a unique technology."

"Right above the assets you will have competences that are to an extent enabled by the assets. For example, perhaps with the unique technology the company is able to create new products every year. Or perhaps the global training base partially enables finding and recruiting the best talent. At this point you will notice that all the competences start with ‘ABLE’. This formulation makes the cluster of statements more distinctive on the map as competences and emphasizes that it is the company’s ability to do something. And finally on the top, you will have competence outcome – those things that the company can achieve with the competences it has. For instance, recruiting the best talents and creating new products every year results in the perception of a company as a leader in innovation."

"To build this map, you will usually start this exercise by generating statements about what the company is good at. At this point, you do not need to concern yourself too much with which of these concepts are assets, which are competences and which are competence outcomes. We are going to demonstrate this approach using an example of focusing on the competitive advantage of a university as part of its strategy. However, you can apply this approach in many different contexts that are not necessarily focused on strategy development. In Figure 7.15 you can see an example of 21 concepts generated for a university."

"In the next step you start sorting out the statements into three groups and rephrasing them, competences in particular, to clarify the meaning. For example, competence 86 'Deliver courses and programmes across campuses in a consistent manner' turned into 86 'ABLE TO Deliver courses and programmes across campuses in a consistent manner'. It is recommended to use different styles for each category to make the map visually clearer.

In Figure 7.16 you can see that statements like 91 'Have local campuses in different countries', 94 'Strong industry connections', or 95 '200 years of history' have been classified as assets – what the university has. The statements like 86 'Able to provide equal opportunities for teaching and research-focused staff', 81 'Able to support flexible modes of teaching (synchronous and asynchronous on a rolling basis)', or 87 'Able to deliver applied and impact-driven research' have been classified as competences – the company’s ability to do or accomplish something. Finally, statements like 77 'Reputation of a global university' or 75 'Legacy of a practice-oriented university' have been classified as competence outcomes – what the company can achieve.

In the next step you might want to regroup the statements within each category to put more distinctive items to the right. For instance, 91 'Have local campuses in different countries', 94 'Strong industry connections' and 92 'Have local teaching staff' have been recognized by the company as The "most distinctive assets, 84 'Able to send students and staff for an exchange to a different country' and 86 'Able to deliver courses and programmes across campuses in a consistent manner' have been recognized as the most distinctive competences, and 77 'Reputation of a global university' has been recognized as the most distinctive competence outcome. As you can see, there is an international theme emerging on the map.

In the next step, you start connecting concepts with each other. Typically, assets will lead competences and competences will lead to competence outcomes, but this is not always the case. Assets can support competence outcomes directly. For instance, 90 'Strong partnerships with affiliated teaching institutions across the world' leads to 76 'Attracts students from all walks of life from across the world'. Competences might also support assets. For instance, 81 'Able to support flexible modes of teaching (synchronous & asynchronous on a rolling basis)' supports 94 'Strong industry connections'. However, it is unlikely that competence outcomes support anything other than other outcomes. Competence outcomes should be the heads in the map, otherwise you might need to re-examine them and scrutinize whether the identified competence outcomes are indeed outcomes."

"To delve into the analysis, you might want to focus on part of the map. For example, in Figure 7.17 statement 86 'Able to deliver courses and programmes across campuses in a consistent manner' seems to be the core distinctive competence, supporting two competence outcomes, 77 'Reputation of a global university' and 79 'Degree is not location specific', and supported by distinctive assets, 91 'Have local campuses in different countries' and 92 'Have local teaching staff', and distinctive competence 84 'Able to send students and staff for an exchange to a different country'.

As we continue analysing the map, we can certainly see an international theme emerging – reputation of a global university, consistency in the delivery of courses and programmes, partnerships across the world. International-local ways of working appear to be a major pattern of distinctiveness for this university. You can continue analysing the map in this manner.

Below is a quick checklist of how to approach mapping competence outcomes, competencies and assets:"

.start with the standard concepts

.assign DCO/DC/DA = ‘jam sandwich’

.move more distinctive items to the right

.explore linkages

.explore the patterns of distinctiveness

"7.6 Designing a workshop for group decision making and open strategizing

Preparing for the workshop

There are four areas to consider when designing a session: client outcomes, process, participants and platform. As an important first step, you need to work with the client to be sure you are clear on the target outcomes, and the benefits or limitations of the methods to be used. Understanding the outcomes will help you ask the right questions at the start of the workshop and guide the process in the right direction.

The process, participants and platform can be identified once the client outcomes are understood and agreed (Figure 7.18).

When preparing for the workshop, you need to detail the process of the entire session, including the following aspects:"

.Decide on what questions to ask to guide participant responses.

.Decide on which frameworks, if any, to use to organize responses.

.Clarify the ordering, timing, and instructions for key activities.

The other important aspect to consider is the participants who are going to provide the input to the process. The considerations might include the following:

.Work with the sponsor to identify the ‘right’ people to be involved.

.Think about the diversity of inputs required in order to achieve the best outcomes.

.Provide a formal invite from the session sponsor to legitimize proceedings.

76: Attracts students from all walks of life from across the world

78: Famous for online education

79: Degree is not location specific

77: Reputation of a global university

81: Flexible modes of teaching (synchronous and asynchronous on a rolling basis)

84: Able to send students and staff for an exchange to a different country

82: Programmes have integration with industry

90: Strong partnerships with affiliated teaching institutions across the world

94: Strong industry connections

91: Have local campuses in different countries

92: Have local teaching staff

"It is important to have power brokers on board, i.e. middle managers and senior managers need to be convinced in the method and agree to have a conversation together, otherwise the enactment strategy will not happen. Finally, it is essential to decide how the workshop is going to be facilitated (enabled) in terms of tools (e.g. whether a digital platform is going to be used, and, if yes, what training might be required). The considerations might include the following:

.Decide on the role that technology and supporting materials will play in running the workshop.

.Think about the needs of the session: the time available, the abilities of participants, the practicalities of logistics.

.Own the organizing task."

Running the workshop

The mapping process involves four key areas: preparation, ideation, analysis, and synthesis, as illustrated in the image below. The following is a recommended process to follow during the workshop:

1.Preparation

.Understand the mapping rules. The participants might need an explanation of the purpose of the workshop and the mapping process.

.Familiarize yourself with the mapping rules. The participants might need training in how to construct statements and link them together.

.Develop the potential outcomes of the mapping process.

2.Ideation

.Bring ideas forward: issues, goals, solutions. At this point, the participants brainstorm ideas and put them forward.

2 Ideation

.Bring ideas forward: issues, goals, solutions. At this point the participants brainstorm ideas and put them forward.

.Identify and mark issues. This involves the facilitator clustering ideas and identifying issues to work with as a starting point.

.Start linking the statements. At this point the mapping process starts, with drawing links between statements.

3 Analysis

.Discuss busy points.

.Vote for the most pressing issue and the most interesting idea.

.Have a break.

4 Synthesis

.Ladder up and down the chain of arguments by linking further statements.

.Connect between issues and goals, building a goal system.

.Run through each selected idea. The facilitator will focus on the ideas that were voted for the most and identify the gaps in arguments.

7.7 Summary

In this chapter we have introduced the action-oriented causal mapping method that is widely used to aid strategic decision making. You have learnt how to use this method to capture aspects of an individual’s thinking or a group’s diverse views on the problem, how to support strategy development or understand organizational core competences, and how to analyse the resulting maps. You have also learnt how to organize a workshop that would provide an environment for facilitating a group causal mapping exercise.

REFLECTIVE EXERCISE

To reflect on what you have learnt in this chapter, choose an issue in your organization that you would like to explore and devise an action-oriented strategy for an organization. Choose your ‘client organization’. This could be a team, unit, division or the whole organization for which you can make meaningful strategy. Avoid selecting an organization that is too large – instead of selecting the whole of corporation XYZ, you could select an organizational unit defined by a regional territory, function or product category. You can select a current or previous employer.

Once you have decided on the issue and the organization, follow the steps outlined in the ‘Constructing causal maps’ section, starting with formulating a question to build the map, and then continue analysing the map to develop a plan of how the issue can be addressed and why it should be addressed. Show the map to your colleagues to help you validate your thinking about the issue and bring in different perspectives.

TEAM EXERCISE

In your team, select an organization and try to analyse its competitive advantage. Start with generating ideas about what this company is good at in terms of assets and competences and competence outcomes. The three questions mentioned in the previous section will help you formulate the right statements:

.What we have: assets

.What we do with the assets: competences

.What we achieve: competence outcomes

Continue through the process outlined in section 7.6 to build a map of competitive advantage for the chosen organization. Discuss how competence outcomes are supported by competences and assets, and which of them are the most important ones. Focus on those and formulate what this company is best at.

References

Ackermann, F and Eden, C (2011a) Making strategy: Mapping out strategic success (2nd ed.), Sage.

Ackermann, F and Eden, C (2011b) Negotiation in strategy making teams: Group support systems and the process of cognitive change, Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(3), pp. 293–314, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9133-y (archived at https://perma.cc/SR8L-JY8V).

Bryson, J.M., Ackermann, F, Eden, C and Finn, C.B. (2004) Visible Thinking: Unlocking causal mapping for practical business results, John Wiley & Sons.

Eden, C and Ackermann, F (2010) Competences, distinctive competences, and core competences. In R. Sanchez, A. Heene, and T. Ede Zimmermann (Eds.), A Focused Issue on Identifying, Building, and Linking Competences, 5, (pp. 3–33) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, https://doi.org/10.1108/S1744-2117(2010) (archived at https://perma.cc/CS8M-3482).

Edmondson, A.C. (2018) The Fearless Organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth, John Wiley & Sons.

Kelly, G. (1955) Personal construct theory. In R.N. Sollod and C.F. Monte (Eds.), Beneath the Mask: An introduction to theories of personality (pp. 449–71). John Wiley & Sons.

Whittington, R., Cailluet, L. and Yakis-Douglas, B. (2011) Opening Strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession, British Journal of Management, 22, pp. 531–44, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00762.x.x (archived at https://perma.cc/Q735-RBPC).